Adrift: Part 3

About the series

This is the third story in a series that will look at the state of America’s space program. In this installment, we examine an alternative and
affordable way for NASA and the private sector to open the space frontier.

Over the remainder of 2014 science writer Eric Berger and photographer Smiley Pool will look at the collapse of the Constellation program, Congressional
infighting for funds, shifting priorities of successive White House administrations, the promise of private space companies and, ultimately, the fate of Houston as
Space City.

Science writer Eric Berger discusses his investigation into the state of NASA.

Above: Over four decades after the last human visited the lunar surface, a waning crescent moon rises over the stars and stripes in west
Houston.

While NASA fixates on Mars, space rivals shoot for the moon

Among those looking on was Buzz Aldrin, the second human to walk on the moon, as Obama glibly dismissed returning there.

“I just have to say pretty bluntly here, we’ve been there before,” the President said, raising his right hand for emphasis. “Buzz has been
there before.”

With this single line from his 2010 speech Obama reinforced the modern zeitgeist of the moon as a dead end on humanity’s path to the stars.

Yet much of the spaceflight community, many planetary scientists and all other space-faring nations do not share that view. The President, they say, had it all
wrong. The moon, rather, offers an essential base camp for human
exploration deeper into the solar system. From an outpost there explorers could fuel rockets, take on supplies and venture deeper into the solar system.

“Every space-faring country in the world, except for the United States, is interested in going to the moon,” said Massachusetts Institute of
Technology rocket scientist Jeffrey Hoffman, a five-time astronaut.

“We could have led the world on a program of international lunar exploration. Everyone else was interested. We squandered that opportunity.”

Obama was right about one thing: NASA has been to the moon before. This Sunday marks the 45th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing, and during the six, short
Apollo missions astronauts like David Scott returned lunar rocks to Earth. Those
samples, and subsequent robotic surveys, revealed a world teeming with resources that could extend NASA’s reach into the solar system.

Excerpt of President Obama speaking at Kennedy Space Center on April 15, 2010.

“I don’t think many people realize it, but there is so much to learn, and so much to do there,” Scott says.

In space, water is life. And in the dark, cold regions of the poles large deposits of ice are mixed in the lunar soil. Astronauts can drink it, of course. It also
could shield their habitats from radiation. Broken apart, water
provides breathable oxygen and hydrogen for fuel cells. But above all else for nations seeking to explore far from home, the water is a tempting cache of fuel.
Oxygen and hydrogen are the most powerful rocket fuels known to man.

The moon also possesses one other singular quality: it is close. It can be reached, explored and developed without fancy new rockets, and doing so would nurture a
burgeoning private rocket industry that is bringing American ingenuity
to spaceflight and slashing costs.

NASA dreams of human missions to Mars, but report after report has said absent a doubling or tripling of NASA’s budget such dreams will eventually turn into
nightmares. Moreover, by shooting for Mars, NASA is falling behind
other countries reaching for the moon in the 21st century replay of the original space race.

But now the race isn’t for bragging rights, it’s to tap the moon’s resources.

Former astronaut Sandy Magnus discusses China's interest in sending humans to the moon.

In April Russia disclosed plans to construct a lunar base by 2040 to obtain water, minerals and other resources. The country’s chief space official, Dmitry
Rogozin, said, “We are coming to the moon forever.” China
landed a robotic spacecraft on the moon in December. Part of the Yutu rover’s mission was to seek out natural resources and scout for eventual human landing
sites. Space policy experts say China’s military run space program
also has geostrategic intentions, such as demonstrating technological superiority to the United States. European countries are interested in the moon as well, and
have said they are ready to go with China or
Russia should the United States focus on Mars.

America got to the moon first, but the countries or corporations that go there to stay will determine how the world closest to the Earth is developed.

“It’s the next frontier,” said Paul Spudis, a Houston-based scientist who has devoted his life to studying the moon. “Whoever gets to the
frontier first will establish what kind of political and social paradigm
will be followed.”

During the original Apollo missions astronauts did as much science as they could, sometimes creatively.

Scott, who as commander of Apollo 15 ventured farther than previous expeditions because he had the first lunar rover, said he always felt pressed for time. While
making the first drive on the moon Scott recalled suddenly spying a
curious, softball-sized rock.

“Oh man!” he radioed to mission control. “Hey, how about it, let’s-” he added, but then stopped.

It was near the end of the foray, and Scott’s oxygen supplies were running low. He and Jim Irwin had strict instructions to return directly to their lunar
outpost.

But, in the zone, Scott couldn’t resist. He feigned an issue with his seatbelt, hopped off the rover, and went to pick up the rock.

More than four decades later Scott cracks a wide smile, laughs and says, “One minute and 47 seconds, and I had this jewel.”

As an undergraduate at Arizona State in 1971 Spudis was watching on television. He had been interested in space during the first Apollo landings, but this was
mesmerizing. Here were two test pilots, guys who weren’t scientists,
doing geology on the moon and having the times of their lives. Right then Spudis switched his major from engineering to geology. He’s never looked back.

A few years ago Spudis got a chance to meet Scott. “I told him,” Spudis recalls, “You’re the guy who changed my life.”

Limited though it may have been, geology done during the Apollo missions taught humans about not only the moon, but also the Earth and sun.

By studying rocks brought back to Earth, scientists found they were similar to those here, leading to the “Giant Impact Hypothesis.” This idea
suggests that, during the early years of the solar system, the moon formed from
debris created when a Mars-sized object collided with Earth.

As fascinating as this is, however, Americans aren’t going back to the moon to gratify scientists. We’d go back for the water.

Paul Spudis believes the road to Mars and destinations beyond goes through the moon.

Over the eons comets striking the moon have deposited more than 10 billion tons of water at the poles, roughly the volume of Utah’s Great Salt Lake.
That’s enough fuel to launch the equivalent of a space shuttle, every
day, for more than 2,000 years.

But could rocket fuel really be produced on the moon?

It might work like this. Small robots would go first to the gray and dusty surface, prospecting for water and mineral deposits buried there. During the second
phase more sophisticated robots would collect the water and begin
converting it into rocket fuel by splitting it into hydrogen and oxygen. Then still more robots would arrive to set up a lunar habitat, build solar power arrays and
establish communication systems. Finally humans would land and, in the
first test of sustainability, attempt to grow crops in lunar greenhouses.

There are challenges in making rocket fuel, especially liquid hydrogen. To turn hydrogen gas into a liquid it must be cooled to near absolute zero, an energy
intensive process. But shaded areas of the moon are already cold, which
helps. Also, special tanks are necessary so this fuel doesn’t boil off, like steam from a boiling pot of water. Liquid oxygen is easier to handle. Both are
doable.

“There’s all the fuel we’ll ever need for exploration, and it’s just sitting there,” Spudis said.

Comparison of NASA and private launch vehicles

To explore beyond low-Earth orbit NASA will need a lot of fuel. When a rocket blasts off Earth just a few percent of what actually reaches orbit is payload. The
rest is the weight of the rocket itself, and the fuel burnt from now
empty tanks to escape the tug of Earth’s gravity. Long duration missions to Mars or elsewhere would require a lot of expensive launches from Earth, each
delivering a little of the fuel needed.

But what if the fuel were already there?

Once mined from lunar soil it’s easy to get fuel from the moon, which has far less gravity than Earth, to a rocket nearby in space. For every ton of rocket
fuel launched from Earth into space, more than 10 tons could be
delivered from the lunar surface with the same amount of thrust.

This is the vision of Spudis and others. Fly robots and then astronauts to the moon, have them live off the land and eventually produce rocket fuel using sunlight
and lunar water. This fuel could be stockpiled in space, near the moon.
Then more astronauts, launching from Earth, could pick up these fuel supplies, refill their tanks, and march further outward into the solar system, to Mars or
wherever.

Looking back: NASA photo from the Apollo missions to the moon

Astronaut David R. Scott gives a military salute while standing beside the U.S. flag during the Apollo 15 lunar surface extravehicular activity at the
Hadley-Apennine landing site in 1971.

Eugene Cernan makes a short checkout of the Lunar Roving Vehicle during Apollo 17 on December 11, 1972. The photograph was taken by astronaut Harrison
Schmitt.

The Apollo 11 Lunar Module ascent stage can be seen from the command service module during rendezvous in lunar orbit before decent to the first moon landing
on July 20, 1969.

Astronaut Buzz Aldrin descends the steps of the Lunar Module ladder as he prepares to walk on the moon on on July 20, 1969. Astronaut Neil Armstrong took
the photograph.

Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin walks on the surface of the moon near the leg of the Lunar Module "Eagle" on July 20, 1969. Astronaut Neil Armstrong took
the photograph.

One of the first human footprints on the moon, left by the astronauts of the Apollo 11 mission on the first moonwalk, lies on the surface of the moon in
this July 20, 1969 photo.

Astronaut James Irwin works at the Lunar Roving Vehicle during the first Apollo 15 lunar surface extravehicular activity This photograph was taken by
astronaut David R. Scott.

Astronaut Buzz Aldrin, lunar module pilot of the first lunar landing mission, poses for a photograph beside the deployed United States flag during Apollo 11
on July 20, 1969. Astronaut Neil Armstrong took the photograph.

Harrison Schmitt heads for a selected rock on the lunar surface to retrieve the sample for study. The action was photographed by Apollo 17 crew commander,
astronaut Eugene Cernan.

Apollo 15 commander David Scott is seated in the Lunar Roving Vehicle on July 31,1971,during the first mission on which the vehicle was used. This
photograph was taken by astronaut James Irwin.

Astronaut David Scott, with tongs and gnomon in hand, studies a boulder on the slope of Hadley Delta during the Apollo 15 lunar surface extravehicular
activity. Lunar module pilot James Irwin took this photograph.

David Scott works at the Lunar Roving Vehicle during the third
lunar surface extravehicular activity of the Apollo 15 mission at the Hadley-Apennine landing site in July 1971.

Harrison Schmitt is photographed next to the US flag during Apollo 17 extravehicular activity at the Taurus-Littrow landing site in December 1972. This
picture was taken by astronaut Eugene Cernan.

The lunar module is in the background of this view of the Taurus-Littrow landing site on December 11, 1972. This was one of the last photographs taken on
the lunar surface.

The lunar lander with Apollo 17's Gene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt is seen hurtling away from the moon toward the command module with astronaut Ron Evans
concluding the final moon mission.

It’s akin to the transcontinental railroad that opened the American West, only with smaller, cheaper, private rockets and the resources of the moon opening
the space frontier. This represents a very different kind of space program. Instead of firing expensive one-off missions to plant flags on distant worlds, it
develops a robust and reusable space program that leads humanity beyond Earth.

So why isn’t NASA going?

A decade ago NASA was divided into camps. There were those who favored a sustainable moon presence, and others who sought a daring, Apollo-like dash to Mars. The
Mars people won and NASA devised an ambitious rocket plan named Constellation to go briefly to the moon, and then onto Mars.

Then came mounting war debts and recession. NASA’s plan was untenable. The question became: What next?

A senior advisor to NASA administrator Charles Bolden named Charles Miller thought he had found the answer.

Working with engineers at Johnson Space Center, as well as five other field centers, and using same tools NASA uses to estimate costs, Miller says, “We
found we could put astronauts on the moon within a decade, inside the
existing budget.”

Charles Miller found, by tapping private industry, NASA could go back to the moon in a decade.

The plan used the commercially available Delta IV Heavy rocket to conduct a steady stream of missions to the lunar surface, allowing humans to begin tapping into
the moon’s resources.

“We briefed it to all the key NASA human spaceflight centers, giving them a chance to challenge the conclusion,” Miller said. “I thought it was
a tremendous result for human spaceflight. We could have a plan that
flies early and flies often.”

NASA never published the study and Miller’s contract wasn’t renewed.

Congress didn’t want radical change and instructed NASA to build a big rocket, the Space Launch System or SLS. Bolden, by then a Mars guy, reinstituted a
plan to send humans to the red planet in the 2030s. This time NASA
wouldn’t even stop at the moon.

Former NASA senior advisor Charles Miller discusses proposals for missions to the moon.

But in June the National Research Council released a blunt assessment of the new plan to reach Mars in the 2030s: Not viable. Instead, NASA should reconsider the
moon as a stepping stone to Mars.

“What we’re saying is that you need to take another look at this,” said Mary Lynne Dittmar, a Houston space consultant who co-authored the
report.

So far, NASA, the White House and Congress haven’t budged.

They have, in fact, backed off developing a technology critical to enabling the Miller plan to open up cislunar space. These are essentially gas stations in
space. A blue-ribbon panel in 2009, led by Norm Augustine, rated these
“propellant depots” as NASA’s top space technology priority. NASA agreed at the time.

A depot might look a lot like a daisy, with a central docking station, and large tanks of fuel radiating outward. There are a handful of locations near the moon
that are stable due to the gravitational balance between Earth and the
moon. These points offer a natural location to position fuel depots that could be supplied by the moon, and used to refill spacecraft for voyages to Mars or
elsewhere in the solar system.

As on the moon, there are significant challenges to storing very cold liquid hydrogen and oxygen in space. One is heating from the sun, so various depot concepts
include large, umbrella-like features to shade them as well as thermos-
bottle like tanks in which to store the fuel. There are also questions about how to transfer fuel from a depot to a spacecraft.

To solve these technical challenges NASA put together a $400 million depot development plan in 2011, said James Reuther, a deputy associate administrator for
space technology at NASA. But so far the agency, told by Congress to
prioritize rocket building, has spent just $60 million on depots.

Miller noted that NASA also opted not to fund private tests of depots to prove their viability.

In 2011 United Launch Alliance proposed such a test for less than $100 million. Reuther said NASA considered the proposal carefully, but that it didn’t go
far enough to prove depots would work.

An industry official familiar with the proposal said this was an excuse.

“Reuther is admitting that perfect is the enemy of the good enough,” the official said. “Rather than flying now and proving that propellant
depots can work, they have chosen to fly nothing. NASA has been doing ground
tests on propellant storage for 50 years. They need to fly stuff, but it will never fly under NASA’s existing management.”

The White House did not oppose depots. It, in fact, sought more funding for space technology and private rockets.

So why disparage the moon?

One reason is Miller’s study hadn’t come out yet, and using traditional means Obama didn’t think NASA could afford to go. Could it have been
political? Obama was no fan of President George W. Bush’s
policies, of course, but advisers say his opposition was to the expensive Constellation program, not the moon.

Nevertheless Obama said it and, in fact, ad-libbed it. The line wasn’t in the original speech. Some have blamed Buzz Aldrin, who rode on the same plane to
Florida. But Aldrin didn’t speak to Obama on the way. So the
mystery remains.

Ever a gifted speaker, Obama received boisterous applause from the Florida crowd. At times the response was more muted, but still polite. But after the
“we’ve been there before” line the crowd’s reaction is
notable for its nearly total silence.